(14-02-2013 05:25 PM)Peterkin Wrote: If there is nobody to tell the ignorant that first lie "You are nothing." and then, "Believe me, and you will be something. Follow me unquestioningly, and you will be important."
If we could avoid that first lie, most of the self-deception would become unnecessary.

What you call the first lie seems almost like a self-evident premise to me, Peterkin. Anything after that is the lie.

Girly, Peterkin had a point: it all starts by destroying children's confidence in their own minds. Telling them to "shut up, you are only a kid!".

I remember arguing with my father about Marx when I was 18 -- I told him that Marx made perfect sense in "Das Kapital" when he described Capitalism's self-destructive nature.

He said (and I still remember and resent it): "It is only your opinion".

(15-02-2013 01:32 AM)GirlyMan Wrote: What you call the first lie seems almost like a self-evident premise to me, Peterkin. Anything after that is the lie.

I suppose it is. I was addressing ClydeLee's concern about ignorant misinformation.

Quote: I think people convince themselves of faulty ideas more than they deliberately lie. I see people think that about politicians and public figures mostly, but It can often, I think more than not, be people woefully convinced of their worldview.

I don't think ignorance prompts people to invest in faulty information uncritically, and repeat it without examining - it's damaged self-esteem. I don't mind admitting what i don't know - because there's so much i do know! In fact, i'm just now thinking i should start one of those "Ask a ____" threads.

(14-02-2013 05:25 PM)Peterkin Wrote: If there is nobody to tell the ignorant that first lie "You are nothing." and then, "Believe me, and you will be something. Follow me unquestioningly, and you will be important."
If we could avoid that first lie, most of the self-deception would become unnecessary.

What you call the first lie seems almost like a self-evident premise to me, Peterkin. Anything after that is the lie.

Those lies that cunningly masquerade as absolute truths and serve as misguided starting points seem the most dangerous of all, as all further extrapolations will be flawed to varying degree.

(15-02-2013 01:32 AM)GirlyMan Wrote: What you call the first lie seems almost like a self-evident premise to me, Peterkin. Anything after that is the lie.

Girly, Peterkin had a point: it all starts by destroying children's confidence in their own minds. Telling them to "shut up, you are only a kid!".

Ah, I think I see what you're saying Zatamon. Telling a kid "You are nothing." just feels like child abuse to me. Giving a kid the education to realize and appreciate and even eventually embrace and even celebrate for themselves they are nothing just feels like proper parenting to me.

(14-02-2013 06:49 AM)Zat Wrote: As I said, in this world you are not forced to tell the truth.

I've studied enough logic to never use the word "truth" casually or even informally. Truth is relative to a specific formal axiomatic system and transformations. Definitionally. Change the axioms, change the transformations, change the truth. The Law of the Excluded Middle, A or ~A, for example, does not hold in every formal system.

(14-02-2013 06:49 AM)Zat Wrote: If only deliberate lies became impossible, this would be an infinitely better world.

Deliberately misrepresenting a particular interpretation of events in an attempt to deceive, that's lying. Truth ain't got nothing to do with it. Deliberately trying to manipulate the general consensus interpretation to your own advantage, well that ain't lying, that's fucking Goebbels. Think that might be what you're trying to get at here and am ashamed to say I think that's what my voting lifelong Republican Party is doing now. That's a malignant cancer which don't think we can surgically excise, but certainly can try to treat. I'm gonna stay within the Party as a pre-existing chemo and radiation agent in the hope I can stop William F. Buckley Jr. from turning over in his grave 'cause he's keeping me up at night.

Hasn't this territory been explored by Butler in Erewhon? ... Read it bitches.

(17-02-2013 04:39 PM)Mr Woof Wrote: Thanks for the Borges stuff.

Kafka and Borges and hell even Castaneda had every bit as much influence on that GirlyBoy some 35 years ago now as did Nietzsche and Camus and Sartre, Woofmeister. Probably why I feel such an affinity with you.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus

(15-02-2013 05:38 PM)Zat Wrote: Girly, Peterkin had a point: it all starts by destroying children's confidence in their own minds. Telling them to "shut up, you are only a kid!".

Ah, I think I see what you're saying Zatamon. Telling a kid "You are nothing." just feels like child abuse to me. Giving a kid the education to realize and appreciate and even eventually embrace and even celebrate for themselves they are nothing just feels like proper parenting to me.

This is probably going to be a tangent... I remember as a kid I HATED some things my parents did. Lately I tried not to forget them, but make sense of them. Turns out, it's true what I felt. Parents are not adults. They are big children that terrorize the little children with Time, Money, Logic, and Violence. If you as a child do something the parent doesn't like, he'll say,
"We don't have Time for that!"
"It costs too much Money!"
"Because it's unreasonable!"
"Because I told you, now shut up or get slapped!"
Parents are like that tabletop office toy with an array of balls on a string, the child does something against Time, Money or Logic, and on the other side the parent feels the hit and hits right back at the child with Time, Money, Logic and Violence.

Being a true parent means to control our emotionality, to have a control over our emotional reactions. Our immediate reaction is to hit back when we get hit. We have to do something entirely different. We have to feel as the child does, if the child is a metaphorical swinging ball, hitting against Time, Money and Logic, we have to move with him. We have to share his feelings, but kind of... give them name, bring them to the surface. Feelings are strong when unconscious, but if you give them a name and share them with another person, they lose momentum. There's more to it, but that is my basic understanding of the book.

Which is also why I have such conflicting feelings about parents, they were good people and very intelligent, but in terms of parenting skills barely more than children armed with Time, Money, Logic and superior power. You have to get along with parents, but you can't be friends with them, can't trust them, can't tell them anything, because you know they'd use it right against you.

I am convinced this understanding of emotions is the key to the society. It employs a special kind of "subjective logic" a.k.a. female logic or child logic, which is not Boolean logic of true and false, but still makes sense and is real. Rather than logic of true and false, I'd call it a logic of attachment, of identity and non-identity. To have emotional control does not mean to be like Mr Spock, but to be like M.L. King when needed, or to be like your favorite aunt or grandparent from earliest memories.

(19-02-2013 08:07 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:

(14-02-2013 06:49 AM)Zat Wrote: As I said, in this world you are not forced to tell the truth.

I've studied enough logic to never use the word "truth" casually or even informally. Truth is relative to a specific formal axiomatic system and transformations. Definitionally. Change the axioms, change the transformations, change the truth. The Law of the Excluded Middle, A or ~A, for example, does not hold in every formal system.

(14-02-2013 06:49 AM)Zat Wrote: If only deliberate lies became impossible, this would be an infinitely better world.

Deliberately misrepresenting a particular interpretation of events in an attempt to deceive, that's lying. Truth ain't got nothing to do with it. Deliberately trying to manipulate the general consensus interpretation to your own advantage, well that ain't lying, that's fucking Goebbels. Think that might be what you're trying to get at here and am ashamed to say I think that's what my voting lifelong Republican Party is doing now. That's a malignant cancer which don't think we can surgically excise, but certainly can try to treat. I'm gonna stay within the Party as a pre-existing chemo and radiation agent in the hope I can stop William F. Buckley Jr. from turning over in his grave 'cause he's keeping me up at night.

Hey Girly. Maybe you could help me with this. It's exactly as you say, truth is always true only within its own system or context.

I believe there is another form of almost "lying" which is not lying, I would call it irresponsible presenting the truth. What if I tell the truth, something demonstrably true and working? What if I am a professor teaching at a university, delivering a wonderful lecture of a working principle, within a given context...
But let's say I present that and only that. Two things may happen.
- The student understands the lesson and applies the principle. However, he was not told where are the limits of this principle, where it loses usefulness. So it may happen he applies it broadly, out of context, or worse, believes it to be a universal principle that solves all mankind's problems, if only everyone followed it.
- The student sees that within the box of context it fits, so he broadens the context and starts thinking out of the box and sees that there are situations where the principle does not apply. He sees that the professor does not seem to teach that. Does he know, care, or even understand?
So if I am a professor and the student tries to outline the limits of the principle (let's say it's Austrian School of liberal economy), what will I do?
- I'll think the student is critical because he did not understand the principle. After all, he's just an ignorant student.
- I'll think this is an ideologic attack against the Austrian School by some blind communist follower.
- I'll see it as undermining of my authority in front of the class.

So tell me please, is it a kind of deceit? Should every lesson contain its own negation, or it's not a good, critical lesson? How should I tell the professor that I'm concerned about this, so I won't get the emotional reactions? Is it safe to come out as an out of the box thinker?

(23-02-2013 06:07 AM)Luminon Wrote: Parents are like that tabletop office toy with an array of balls on a string, the child does something against Time, Money or Logic, and on the other side the parent feels the hit and hits right back at the child with Time, Money, Logic and Violence.

hehehehe ... That's pretty good Luminon.

(23-02-2013 06:07 AM)Luminon Wrote: Being a true parent means to control our emotionality, to have a control over our emotional reactions. Our immediate reaction is to hit back when we get hit. We have to do something entirely different. We have to feel as the child does, if the child is a metaphorical swinging ball, hitting against Time, Money and Logic, we have to move with him. We have to share his feelings, but kind of... give them name, bring them to the surface. Feelings are strong when unconscious, but if you give them a name and share them with another person, they lose momentum. There's more to it, but that is my basic understanding of the book.

Think you'll make an excellent parent if you ain't already one.

(23-02-2013 06:07 AM)Luminon Wrote: But let's say I present that and only that. Two things may happen.
- The student understands the lesson and applies the principle. However, he was not told where are the limits of this principle, where it loses usefulness. So it may happen he applies it broadly, out of context, or worse, believes it to be a universal principle that solves all mankind's problems, if only everyone followed it.
- The student sees that within the box of context it fits, so he broadens the context and starts thinking out of the box and sees that there are situations where the principle does not apply. He sees that the professor does not seem to teach that. Does he know, care, or even understand?

The second student has learned the lesson. The first student is guilty of the fallacy of overgeneralization. The best students redefine the dimensions of the box.

(23-02-2013 06:07 AM)Luminon Wrote: So if I am a professor and the student tries to outline the limits of the principle (let's say it's Austrian School of liberal economy), what will I do?
- I'll think the student is critical because he did not understand the principle. After all, he's just an ignorant student.
- I'll think this is an ideologic attack against the Austrian School by some blind communist follower.
- I'll see it as undermining of my authority in front of the class.

So tell me please, is it a kind of deceit? Should every lesson contain its own negation, or it's not a good, critical lesson? How should I tell the professor that I'm concerned about this, so I won't get the emotional reactions? Is it safe to come out as an out of the box thinker?

No, it's not a kind of deceit. It's an exercise left to the student. In my experience, if I had presented this to any of my instructors they would not have taken even the least bit of offense, they would have considered me an excellent pupil. Go outta the box with it bitch.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus